Munro—Some Tendencies in History. 705 
viduality. In our attempts to understand the men of a past 
age we lay stress upon their habits and daily life, but also 
more and more upon their ideas and ideals. “What it is 
important for us to know with respect to our own age, or 
every age, is not its peculiar opinions, but the complex ele¬ 
ments of that moral feeling and character, in which as in their 
congenial soil opinions grow .” “No presentation of history 
can be adequate which neglects the growth of the religious 
consciousness, of literature, of the moral and physical 
sciences, of art, of scholarship, and of social life.” It is 
significant of the trend of our interests that the last two 
presidents of the American Historical Association have em¬ 
phasized in their presidential addresses the necessity of 
studying the spiritual motives by which men have been ac¬ 
tuated. In this field of endeavor Ranke’s warning must be 
heeded, these factors must be discovered not by the way of 
philosophical speculation, but by the critical study of facts. 
Where can the facts be ascertained? At first historians 
trusted almost wholly to the writings which had an avowed 
historical purpose, especially histories and biographies; 
Herodotus, Thucydides, Livy, Tacitus, Plutarch, Suetonius, 
Bede, Villehardouin, Clarendon, and similar authors. And 
the tendency was to follow the author who wrote in the most 
pleasing or striking style; for centuries William of Tyre was 
followed for the first crusade with practically no attempt to 
get back to the sources which he used, although the latter 
were easily accessible in print. Gradually, however, scholars 
began to consult annals, chronicles, constitutions, treaties, 
letters, monuments, coins, weapons, and other historical 
remains. But still the preference was given to the written 
account, especially chronicles and memoirs, or recollections. 
This was natural, because it seemed possible to use these 
without much preliminary criticism. Careful scholars gen¬ 
erally ascertained whether the author was a contemporary, 
whether he intended to be truthful, what his sympathies 
were, and summed up their criticisms, as Potthast did, in 
brief formulas: e. g. “trustworthy”; “very naive”; “written 
in barbaric, but sincere language”; “full of meat and re¬ 
markably well-written.” Little attention was paid to the 
rules of evidence. 
Later a reaction set in. Historians began to realize that 
recollections were seldom accurate, that the human memory 
